I__. - International Military Testing Association

The three critical issues were formulated to cover all major concerns regarding the
expected operational capability of the FSC organization:
tiorts?
3. Carl the modular concept FSC orgunization transitiotl from peace to wartime operll-
With the criteria requirements subsumed for each issue indicating responses of “go”/
“no go” or “unobserved~” and space for comments from the SME evaluators, the collected
responses were tested for significance using chi-squared. Although simple majority judgments
are often employed to make decisions when deliberating on courses of action to be
selected, it was decided that due to the operational consequences, the decision to adopt the
FSC organization should be based on significant data comparisons to avoid any random or
possibly biased observations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The SME evaluators responded to Issue 1 and its criteria with 150 (Goj, 12 (NO
GO), and 124 (UNOBS) observations. Compared to the expected distribution of responses.
it was found these responses were significantly different by chi-squared: X2 (2, N = 286) =
112.81,~ c.001. While there is definitely a significant difference among the three categories
of responses, only the difference between the “go” and “no go” would be significant. Even
though the difference between the “no go” and “unobserved” would be significant, the
meaning could not be clear since many comments related to the “unobserved” responses
inferred that the techrzical wartime missions/functions were feasible (“go”). There was an
overall impression that the technical wartime missions/functions can be performed. thc@~
equipment and certain procedures may act as constraints. For Issue 1 there were more
“unobserved” responses than for the other two issues. Some “no go” responses resulted
from observations of deficient transportation assets and of lack of sufficient staffing. “Unobserved”
responses were further attributed to evaluators judging some tasks were feasible.
but resources were not available to operate during the training and field exercises. Technology
and staffing shortages were repeatedly cited as cause for non-evaluation (omitted) and
“unobserved” responses, with some missions/functions tending to become evaluated as “no
go” without specific available equipment/materiel. Again, many “unobsen?ed” responses
acknowledged the potential validity of the “go’s:
Issue 2 and its criteria showed evaluator responses of 146 (GO.), 17 (NO GO). and 3~
(UNOBS). Compared to the expected distribution of responses, it was found these responses
were significantly different by chi-squared: X2 (2, N = 199) = 746.25, p C .(iOl.
There is definitely a significant difference also among the three categories of rzsponser